WND » Alan Keyeshttp://www.wnd.com
A Free Press For A Free People Since 1997Tue, 31 Mar 2015 21:54:40 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2Will Cruz put party above constitutional allegiance?http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/will-cruz-put-party-above-constitutional-allegiance/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/will-cruz-put-party-above-constitutional-allegiance/#commentsThu, 26 Mar 2015 23:40:06 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1839645It’s official. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is competing in the GOP presidential primaries. I have only one question for him: Will he pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee, whomever that may be? De facto, this pledge is required of every competitor in the GOP primary process. In a few states it is even enforced by “sore-loser laws” affecting presidential candidates. In any case, the pledge is designed to compel all GOP candidates to put their loyalty to party above their allegiance to the constitutional liberty of the American people. But can Sen. Cruz, or anyone else who takes the pledge, be trusted by voters sincerely opposed to the elitist faction’s effort to overthrow that liberty?

Participation in any political party ought properly to be conditional. If and when support for a party or its candidates proves inimical to the secure exercise of God-endowed rights, true partisans of liberty are obliged, by the primordial purpose of government, to withdraw their support from that party. They are obliged to pursue an alternative consistent with their duty “to secure these rights.”

How is it that self-proclaimed conservatives in the GOP fail to understand this simple logic? Many of them applauded recently when Wisconsin passed a “right-to-work” law. They say it’s contrary to liberty to insist that workers remain in closed-shop unions that have failed to represent their interest as workers. Yet they insist that citizens must remain in closed-shop political parties that systematically refuse to let them do their duty as Americans. It’s ludicrous for “conservatives” who claim to be champions of liberty and competitive enterprise to insist on a political process that blatantly encourages the suppression of both when it comes to the electoral process.

Given its track record for almost a generation, it’s also ludicrous to pretend that abandoning the treacherous GOP will only make matters worse. Because of its quisling leadership, GOP party politics has become relentlessly corrupt and corrupting. It takes people who sincerely wish to be good citizens, and turns them bad; or else it treacherously abuses their support in order to support Obama’s policy abuses.

The proportion of the electorate still loyal to the constitutional republic is more than sufficient to wrest control of our government from the elitist faction parties bent on destroying it. It has demonstrated its strength in every election cycle since 2008. But in the aftermath of all those elections, the quisling leadership that controls the institutional processes of the GOP has slyly worked to betray constitutional loyalists. As things stand, the GOP has become the crucial obstacle to success for forces loyal to the constitutional republic. In the 2014 election cycle, this pattern of covert betrayal turned to open political warfare against them.

So now, in respect to every area of American life, the liberty-destroying agenda of the elitist faction is dangerously close to achieving permanent control of government power at the national level.

The openly declared war against liberty evident in the GOP has its counterpart in Obama’s open moves toward national dictatorship. That dictatorship is now rapidly approaching full maturity, with the de facto collaboration of so-called Republicans who are supposed to be its staunch opponents. For example:

b) That dictatorship maneuvers to control our state and local law enforcement agencies, establishing what amounts to a national police state;

c) That dictatorship pushes to consolidate control of education (Common Core) at every level throughout the nation, fastening shackles of the mind on future generations so as to preclude any future resurgence of the understanding that gave rise to and sustains America’s practice of liberty;

d) And that dictatorship has given aid and comfort to global forces dedicated to imposing, by even the most atrocious violence, a way of life that justifies submission to totalitarian despotism, and that claims Divine authority for a regime of politico-religious law that precludes the conscientious exercise of rights endowed by the Creator, rather than securing them.

Sen. Cruz may sincerely reject the destructive agenda the GOP quislings serve. But if he participates in the primaries on the basis of a promise to support the GOP nominee, no matter who, no matter what, he will prove himself to be just another hapless performer in the elitist faction’s political sham. Assuming that his campaign attracts voters, it will more than likely exhaust the moral and material resources of his grass-roots supporters. When they are cheated of victory (as the GOP’s record now uniformly suggests they will be) his supporters will again be told that they have no alternative, in the general election, but to vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Where will this leave America’s constitutional republic? To its lingering death.

Whether Einstein said it or not, it is still true that exactly repeating an error over and over again, groundlessly hoping for different results, is the very definition of insanity. Unfortunately, unlike physics, in human affairs, though the error is the same, the situation goes from worse to worst. The constitutional sovereignty of the American people is now approaching extinction. Given the mortal inevitability of demographic erosion, purposely aggravated by Obama’s lawless amnesty for illegals, the 2016 election cycle may be the last opportunity to snatch it from oblivion, peaceably.

For true republicans, the GOP presidential primary process is (and is intended to be) a waste of time, money and moral capital. It has no purpose but to exhaust energies that would be sufficient to thwart the elitist agenda for liberty’s destruction, if they were coherently deployed in the electoral process the U.S. Constitution actually provides for.

In that regard the question is: “How can true republicans reform our politic activity so that it complies with the Constitution’s provisions instead of subverting them?” Are you are sincerely interested in thinking this through? If so, follow the series of articles on this subject (U.S. Politics, the Constitutional Way) under way on my blog. The first two parts are available now, with more to come.

Receive Alan Keyes' commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Alan Keyes' alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

Name*

FirstLast

Email*

Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code*

A valid zip code or postal code is required

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/will-cruz-put-party-above-constitutional-allegiance/feed/0Beck out of GOP: Why leaving is not enoughhttp://www.wnd.com/2015/03/beck-out-of-gop-why-leaving-is-not-enough/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/beck-out-of-gop-why-leaving-is-not-enough/#commentsThu, 19 Mar 2015 23:43:57 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1815535I was deep in the throes of thinking through the remainder of my column on building an alternative to the elitist faction’s sham two-party system when an email drew my attention to a WND story with the headline “‘Glenn Beck: I’m done with ‘not good’ GOP.’” The sub-head read “Declares he is no longer a Republican.”

As the saying goes, truth in advertising requires that I declare my biases upfront. I don’t trust Glenn Beck. He’s one of those people who strikes conservative poses on issues here and there, but expresses the utmost contempt for the issues of constitutional principle on which the perpetuation of America’s liberty depends. I explained this at some length in a column I wrote back in January 2010 in response to his statement that concern over Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for the presidency was the “dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.”

In that column, I emphasized that I and others willing to battle in the courts of law and public opinion over the eligibility issue did so because bipartisan contempt for the Constitution’s provisions in one area would inevitably lead to overall contempt for its authority. I wrote:

Some, including both Democrats and Republican, have responded to public concern by arguing that the majority will expressed in the 2008 election makes the constitutional issue irrelevant. But if it’s correct to argue that, when the outcome of an election warrants it, the winners have a mandate simply to ignore questions of constitutionality, then the struggle for political power trumps respect for the provisions of the Constitution. The result: Once power has been obtained by electoral means, it is no longer subject to constitutional limits. … What does it matter who reads the Constitution if, once in power, officials may arbitrarily pick and choose the provisions they are obliged to respect and carry out?

Bipartisan contempt for the Constitution’s language regarding presidential eligibility foreshadowed the GOP quislings de facto acceptance of Obama’s disregard for the constitutional requirement that the president “take care the laws be faithfully executed” when it comes to illegal immigration. It foreshadowed congressional disregard, in the budget process, for the constitutional requirement that revenue-raising measures be initiated in the U.S. House of Representatives. It foreshadowed Obama’s pretense that lawful executive orders can be issued without warrant in laws duly passed by the U.S. Congress.

Beck cites the GOP’s failure to respond to these abuses among his reasons for turning against the party. But by ridiculing the demand that the Constitution’s eligibility provisions be taken seriously, he himself contributed to an atmosphere of bipartisan contempt for the Constitution’s authority.

Later in 2010 Glenn Beck suddenly began to make a big show of his belief in the importance of religious faith. This culminated in a much publicized event in Washington in August 2010.

Beck says that he believes in the Constitution, and in the principles of the Founding Fathers. Yet regarding the eligibility issue, he acts as if plainly stated requirements of the Constitution can be contemptuously brushed aside without damage to its authority.

He says that he believes that we must return to God. Yet he abandons principle on issues that most explicitly involve imposing on our nation laws and practices that deny the natural law derived from God’s authority. … ["Glenn Beck is pro gay marriage"]

What am I to make of someone who feelingly declares that we must return America to God and its principled foundations, then acts and speaks in ways that effectively deny both?

In a blog post I published in September 2009, I pointed out that “Obama’s socialist putsch is rousing the conservative instincts of the American people.” I wrote of the quisling GOP leaders who “see it as their job to exploit this reaction for political purposes, but without letting power fall into the hands of any true conservatives. It’s a delicate maneuver, in which media Judas goats have an indispensable role.”

By now it has become obvious to most thinking conservatives that this is an accurate assessment of the quisling GOP’s role in the elitist faction’s strategy for the demise of the constitutional liberty of the American people. Yet constitutional liberty still stands a chance if the GOP quislings’ continual betrayals lead liberty’s authentic partisans to abandon the GOP delusion.

So I sincerely wish I could believe in Glenn Beck’s show of leaving the GOP. I wish I could stifle the thought that it’s just a performance, the prelude to leading anyone who trusts him back into the political slaughter pens of the sham two-party ploy, whenever the elitist faction’s media puppeteers decide the time is right.

But I am not convinced by postures justified only by opposition to this or that unpopular feature of the elitist faction’s assault on our sovereignty as a free people. Such posturing may be nothing more than the fatally misleading footsteps of a Judas goat.

I am looking for people positively committed to the principle of God-endowed right, stated in the American Declaration of Independence.

I am looking for people who understand that securing our future as a free people requires more than abandoning the elitists’ single faction partisan sham.

It requires building a process to replace it, a process that sees politics, as the Constitution does, in terms of the grass-roots communities in which we live.

It requires building a process that is based, like our sovereignty as a people, on the commitment to do right as God gives us to see the right. That is, after all, the true mainstay of liberty.

Our Constitution of liberty demands a politics to match. In articles published this week I began the process of thinking through how partisans of liberty can bring that politics to life in the months ahead. Are you willing to consider it?

Receive Alan Keyes' commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Alan Keyes' alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

Name*

FirstLast

Email*

Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code*

A valid zip code or postal code is required

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/beck-out-of-gop-why-leaving-is-not-enough/feed/0Lindsey Graham's unconstitutional threathttp://www.wnd.com/2015/03/lindsey-grahams-unconstitutional-threat/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/lindsey-grahams-unconstitutional-threat/#commentsThu, 12 Mar 2015 23:24:34 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1790265“Here is the first thing I would do if I were president of the United States: I wouldn’t let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to.”

– Sen. Lindsey Graham, March 7, 2015

I recently ran across this statement by Sen. Lindsey Graham, on WND commentator Bradlee Dean’s Sons of Liberty website. In the article, which includes the audio record of Graham’s statement, Mr. Dean rightly characterizes it as the “comments of a dictator, not a man suited to be president. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution would he be authorized to make such actions. In fact, they would trump the criminal activities of the current usurper of the White House.”

I heartily agree with Bradlee Dean’s criticism. Someone at Graham’s office “told Mediaite … that Graham was employing over-the-top-humor to win over his audience.” However, we’re presently in the midst of the most open and deliberate assault on the authority of the U.S. Constitution by any president in our history. What kind of politician expects true Republicans to laugh at the prospect of a future GOP occupant of the White House advancing Obama’s dictatorial agenda to the point of using military coercion against the Congress of the United States to do something the Constitution explicitly forbids, Article I.6, paragraph 1?

Grahams delivers his supposed “humor” in a tone that makes it appear deadly as a heart attack. His serious demeanor reminded me of the fact that, in every respect, its anti-constitutional content is consistent with the elitist faction’s agenda for the demise of American liberty. In that respect, the “humor” might just be the carrier frequency that conveys (to those who have ears to hear) the notion that he’s the sort of Republican to complete the agenda Obama has thus far so treacherously advanced.

Graham was speaking out against cuts in our defense and national security budgets. Because I hate the damage Obama has done to America’s preparedness, I heartily support the goal of undoing it. But unlike some people who profess to be conservative, I’m not a “pragmatist” who thinks it makes sense to pretend we can defend America’s way of life by shredding our Constitution of liberty. I leave that pretense to Obama and the GOP quislings who work with him in pursuit of the elitist faction’s tyrannical agenda.

Their pervasive collaboration is the reason everything thing that happens in government and politics these days is a two-edged sword. For example, it’s in our interest to signal a dramatic break with the racism of our past, so we must elect someone to the White House with a lifelong hatred of America’s principles and positive achievements. It’s in our interest to defeat the terrorists in the war they make against us, so we must pass laws that authorize the systematic abrogation of the rights and due process essential to our integrity as a free people. It’s in our interest to prevent the collapse of our productive economy, so we must implement reverse Robin Hood bailouts, funded by astronomical debt that destroys the good faith and credit of the American people.

Much more such progress and we shall be undone. Yet and still it does not stop. Speaker John Boehner invites Prime Minister Netanyahu to address the U.S. Congress, ostensibly to counter the Obama faction’s efforts to secure Netanyahu’s defeat in the upcoming elections in Israel. People like myself are cheered by, and inclined to cheer, what appears to be a courageous demarche to signal the American people’s unflagging support for the U.S.-Israeli partnership.

Now comes the report that Boehner and Pelosi made a “deal to use the hoopla around … Netanyahu’s … address to Congress over Iran’s nuclear ambitions as political cover” for the quisling/Obama faction vote to fund Obama’s anti-constitutional amnesty for illegal immigrants. As Michele Bachmann says, “They’ve given the appearance of pushing this wildly unpopular vote under the cover of a wildly popular speech by a wildly popular leader. …”

Tragically, this poisonous double-edged quality seems now to infect even the most sincere efforts to counter the fatal damage Obama’s foreign and domestic policies aim to inflict on our nation. I strongly support the understanding and purpose that informed the letter Sen. Tom Cotton and his colleagues in the U.S. Senate addressed to the leaders of Iran, but their action was inconsistent with the prudential requirements of America’s international stature. It sent a blatant signal of exploitable disunity to friend and foe alike. It pushed the limits of the “advise and consent” role of the U.S. Senate when it comes to our nation’s international affairs, opening the door to the self-defeating plurality of voices our founders deliberately sought to avoid when they rejected the institution of a plural executive for the Constitution of the United States.

The letter’s signatories were well advised to look for a way to make it clear that Obama’s treacherous surrender to Iran’s ambition to develop and deploy nuclear weapons will not stand. But they delivered that message by means that imprudently set a constitutionally erosive precedent for the future. The key to prudent statesmanship is to do what’s necessary in each given instance in a way that respects what’s necessary on the whole.

The failure to do so in this case is the direct result of the fact that the GOP’s quisling leaders have adamantly refused to call Obama to account for his anti-constitutional actions. Why do GOP senators need to write open letters to foreign leaders informing them of the fact that, under the U.S. Constitution, Obama’s agreement can be repudiated by the U.S. Congress? If effective GOP actions made in accordance with the Constitution made that point clear in the record of Congress’ activities, there would be no need to make it with words addressed to foreign leaders during an ongoing negotiation which, at the very least, violate the prudential logic of the Constitution’s unitary executive.

It’s long past time for Americans to re-examine our tolerance for a sham political process that saddles us with elected government officials who seem unwilling or unable to look out for our safety, our security and the effective integrity of the constitutional sovereignty of the American people, all at the same time. That’s the challenge of competent statesmanship, and the elected officials on both wings of the elitist faction’s sham party system every day prove themselves unwilling or unable to meet it.

Receive Alan Keyes' commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Alan Keyes' alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

Name*

FirstLast

Email*

Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code*

A valid zip code or postal code is required

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/lindsey-grahams-unconstitutional-threat/feed/0GOP quislings' treachery: Who are the losers, really?http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/gop-quislings-treachery-who-are-the-losers-really/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/gop-quislings-treachery-who-are-the-losers-really/#commentsFri, 06 Mar 2015 00:39:44 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1764485This week I read a WND article reporting Phyllis Schlafly’s response to the latest in an almost unbroken line of betrayals by the GOP’s quisling leaders in Congress. The headline reads “Schlafly’s had it: We’re tired of GOP’s losers!”

But it’s the conservative voters who are the losers: the ones who made up the majorities that gave the GOP control of the House of Representatives in 2010 and 2012, and that, in 2014, add control of the U.S. Senate as well. It’s Phyllis Schlafly and other lifelong, dedicated conservative leaders like her who are the losers, as they live to see the decent liberty they fought to conserve crushed by the juggernaut of advancing government control and domination.

Above all, its America’s Constitution, its liberty and the unalienable rights of the people of the United States that are the losers, as Obama and his quisling collaborators in the GOP relentlessly push the elitist faction’s campaign to overthrow America’s constitutional republic, replacing it with a de facto dictatorship of, by and for the powerful, elitist few.

From the perspective of their true agenda, the forces now dominant in the GOP haven’t suffered a single defeat since the 1980 presidential election. Thanks to the conservative façade erected for them by the elder George Bush’s patient willingness to play second fiddle during the Reagan era, they were able to exploit the conservative voter base of the GOP (which Reagan consolidated and expanded) so that the heirs of the leftist Rockefeller Republicans could win electoral victories they would otherwise never have been able to achieve.

Before the Reagan era, these leftist Republicans accepted the label of “moderates” in an unsuccessful effort to distinguish themselves from their more overtly socialist counterparts among the Democrats. But behind the false badge of conservatism George Bush senior obtained from his years as Reagan’s understudy, they were able to identify themselves as conservatives. This gave them credibility with conservative voters whose views they actually despised, and the opportunity to raise up new voters for whom the conservative label was a hollow partisan identifier, used interchangeably with “Republican” or “GOP”. Thus the GOP’s leftist quislings dissolved the understanding that cemented the GOP to its Reagan-era conservative base.

While encouraging this dissolution, they also maneuvered to replace the GOP’s dependence on conservatives (who were, in any case, being decimated by natural mortality) with a political process that exclusively depended on results fabricated by the money and media power of an elitist clique. As necessary, they deploy forces to staunch authentically conservative grassroots tides that rise against their agenda for tyranny (especially on issues of essential republican principle like the unalienable right to life, the defense of the authority and unalienable rights of the God-endowed family, or the integrity of our territorial, political and economic sovereignty.)

Openly fraudulent repression of the electorate’s will (such as Thad Cochran’s victory in the 2014 Mississippi primary), is the closest thing to failure the elitist faction has suffered in what has otherwise been its spectacularly successful move to hijack America’s electoral process. What is the key to their success? They have pre-empted real outcomes in the general elections, based on votes cast, with prospective outcomes in the phony candidate selection process that precedes the real elections.

Buzzwords like “viability” are used to screen candidates out of that preselection process based on criteria heavily weighted with factors (in particular media coverage and fundraising) that the elitist faction almost entirely controls. So-called news coverage of the candidate selection process develops story lines that focus on extraneous issues of personality and/or horse-race style campaign tactics. That coverage emphasizes the good-sounding but hollow rhetoric, and carefully crafted false personas, of candidates who have “made their bones” with the elitist faction powers-that-be (usually by betraying their conservative constituents on at least one matter of vital importance). People who authentically represent views the elitist clique rejects are either never mentioned, or are viciously undermined and attacked.

When it works, this elitist faction “virtual reality” preselection process assures that, by the day of the general election, the choices voters perceive to be effectively available for their support are two candidates owned and operated by the elitist faction clique. This is not yet true in every election at every level (as it was, for example, in the Communist countries of the old Soviet Bloc). But it’s true enough in critical elections (for the presidency and the U.S. Congress, for example) that it will do until complete dependence on electronic means make the imposition of universally rigged “virtual reality” “elections” feasible at every level.

In light of all this, Phyllis Schlafly’s reference to GOP losers reminds me of a scene from “Silverado.” A sheriff’s posse is chasing three of the movie’s quartet of heroes. It looks as if their capture is inevitable when shots ring out. One zings close by the shoulder of one of the pursuers, taking a chip out of a cactus leaf. Another bites the dust, causing a pursuer’s horse to rear up. Another rips the sheriff’s incongruous bowler hat from his head. At that point, the sheriff gives the word to halt the pursuit. One of the posse demurs, saying, “Why are we stopping? There’s only one of them, and he can’t hit the side of a barn.” To which the sheriff replies: “You fool. He’s hit everything he’s aimed at.”

The quislings in charge of the GOP have hit everything they’ve aimed at. They’re not the losers. Principled conservatives blind and foolish enough to keep playing their rigged game are the losers. If it were just a matter of wins and losses in the political horse race, I frankly wouldn’t care. But the things Phyllis Schlafly and others like her have battled for all their lives are vital to the survival and perpetuation of our constitution of liberty. They are vital to the hopes of decent people throughout the world. Such people want just, decent self-government, secure from the might-makes-right depredations of elitist gangsters, whatever religious or ideological pose they use to beatify their crimes.

The exceptional success of America’s experiment in republican, democratic, constitutional self-government is, as Abraham Lincoln famously suggested, vital to their hopes. God knows whether we are the last such hope. And our sins must cause us to doubt that we are the best. But for now one thing is certainly clear, as we falter and fail in our conviction, so does the present hope the exceptional longevity and progress of our liberty has, until recently offered to all humanity. (How Washington handled early losses to the British offers lessons for conservatives today. In my latest blog post I reflect on his example.)

Receive Alan Keyes' commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Alan Keyes' alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

Name*

FirstLast

Email*

Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code*

A valid zip code or postal code is required

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/gop-quislings-treachery-who-are-the-losers-really/feed/0Hey, America: Who loves ya, baby?http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/hey-america-who-loves-ya-baby/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/hey-america-who-loves-ya-baby/#commentsFri, 27 Feb 2015 00:51:56 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1739465I am reminded of the scene from some television comedy I once saw. After many unsuccessful contrivances, an unfaithful wife, determined to eliminate her arrogantly unsuspecting husband, finally manages to deliver what appears to be a fatal blow. Wising up at last, his eyes wide with surprise and shock, her husband gasps, “Does this mean you don’t love me anymore?”

Enter Rudy Giuliani, supposedly speaking for America’s wounded feelings, letting us know that Obama doesn’t love America. Yet it says something deeply uncomplimentary about America’s leadership during this era of purposely induced decline that a well-known star in the GOP’s firmament has taken this long to get less than halfway to the truth about Obama.

In the years since then, his repeated tyrannies and usurpations have induced every symptom of pious outrage from GOP leaders, but little effective resistance. Even now, they are doing their best to make sure Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders on illegal immigration move forward unhindered. They are also working to pass a new international trade agreement that will increase his power to negotiate and implement policies that sell out America’s economic potential.

Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani actually epitomizes the abandonment of American principle that is at the root of these repeated GOP betrayals. In America’s history, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States have represented the standard of right and justice for which Americans in every generation risked and gave their lives.

The Declaration literally states the premises for the form of government the Constitution implements. It is a republic, constrained by respect for the equal, God-given rights of all Americans. This is not because we are all wealthy, talented and wise, but because we are human beings, who are presumed to be willing to live according to the common sense of right and decency which God instilled into our consciences.

The Constitution exists to implement these principles of equal justice, as well as America’s assumed commitment to respect and do what is right, as the aim of just government. The contemporary attack on the Constitution is the effect of the simple fact that the most greatly blessed, but also most sinfully ungrateful elite class in the history of humankind has pretty much abandoned allegiance to the Declaration’s principles, especially its first and most important premise, that right and rights are endowed by God.

Barack Obama brings into focus the elitist faction’s enmity toward the moral premises of the American way of life. Too many of our preening, self-worshiping elites long for the glory days, when powerful people could strut the world like little gods, whom so-called common people dared not look in the face. Their mouths are full of compassion for the needy, weak and downtrodden, but their actual policy respects nothing but power. It drips, also, with Nietzschean, Ayn Randian contempt for those too meek, weak and lowly to be acclaimed as the builders of America’s greatness.

When I heard that Rudy Giuliani was questioning Obama’s love for America, I wondered, “Why does he still refused to admit that it is hatred, not the absence of love, which drives Obama?” It drives the whole elitist faction Obama represents. Giuliani stops short of the truth. So should I be struck dumb by his bold courage, or intrigued enough to investigate his odd failure of perception?

America’s Declaration principles are the well-spring of the spirit of right and justice that has time and again aided those who hungered and fought for justice in our society; that has time and again encouraged our troops and affirmed the nobility of their physical and moral sacrifice. Respect for those principles is a vital touchstone of the love we bear our country.

But Rudy Giuliani figures prominently among those Republicans who stand in support of the specious right to kill innocent babies in the womb. They discard the principle that each and every human being is possessed of unalienable rights that no human government or individual can justly transgress, whatever their relative power. He figures prominently among those who declare their support for specious “gay rights” but say nothing about the ongoing attack on the God-endowed unalienable rights of the natural family. Thus he contemns the Declaration’s avowed respect for the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.” Thus he ignores the words of the U.S. Constitution’s Ninth Amendment, which explicitly prohibits denying or disparaging such antecedent rights of the people, whether or not they are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

Discard the principles of the Declaration, and government of by and for the people must fail. Discard democratic-republican government, of by and for the people, and America will be no more. But, his anti-Obama rhetoric notwithstanding, Rudy Giuliani agrees with Obama when it comes to abandoning the nation’s principles.

Are we supposed to forget that love is about what you care for, not what you stand against? Giuliani criticizes Obama’s deficiency of love, yet he himself abandons the premises of America’s national identity. Such abandonment speaks more of hate than love, whether it is Obama or Giuliani who perpetrates it. Aren’t we forced to wonder what there is, in principle, to choose between them?

Let God-endowed right be destroyed, by open assault or sly betrayal, and America dies with it. In choosing among those who aid and abet its demise, what reason have we to believe that any of them represent a true answer to the Detective Kojak’s characteristic query: Who loves ya, baby?

Receive Alan Keyes' commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Alan Keyes' alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

Name*

FirstLast

Email*

Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code*

A valid zip code or postal code is required

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/hey-america-who-loves-ya-baby/feed/0Chris Cuomo's stance against God-endowed rightshttp://www.wnd.com/2015/02/chris-cuomos-stance-against-god-endowed-rights/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/chris-cuomos-stance-against-god-endowed-rights/#commentsFri, 20 Feb 2015 00:44:04 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1715965Michel de Montaigne was a French aristocrat widely known as one of the early progenitors of secular humanism. In his “Essays,” he dwells at some length on the wide disparity of moral codes that have governed societies at different times and places in the experience of humanity. He aims to make it hard to avoid the conclusion that there is hardly an evil under the sun that has not been considered noble and praiseworthy, or else required as normal and acceptable, in some society or other, at some point in that experience.

Some would argue that this observation casts doubt on the assumption that there are any “laws of nature and of nature’s God” that reflect a standard for human existence. Be that as it may (and I hold, with the prevalent view of America’s founding generation, that it is egregiously false), the self-contradicting variety of human societal norms undoubtedly invalidates the assumption that a good standard of justice can be erected upon the shifting sands of human consensus and compromise.

The 20th century is littered with examples of massive evil perpetrated by people who were celebrated, at the time, as heroes of the “volk” or of the “Revolution,” as just avengers, or godly warriors, for perpetrating what we now call “crimes against humanity.” But even when thusly described, it is necessary to ask how humanity becomes a standard for just action when whole societies of men are capable of applauding characters of unimaginably depraved criminality and/or revering them as living stelae that mark the way to higher planes of human existence.

The people of the United States are in the midst of an era of ominous moral turmoil that questions our judgment in exactly these terms. In the name of human equality, love and compassion, a supposedly enlightened elitist clique is abusing the name of law to force the people at large to accept sexual and other practices deprecated by human reason and/or religious sensibility even before the end of ancient times. In all the courts and offices of government where they have sufficient power, this elitist clique is advancing to a place of honor things like child sacrifice, homosexuality and self-murder. Pedophilia, sadism and law-enforced religious persecution are commencing to petition for equal pride of place. In the course of this campaign, the understanding of law that insists upon its moral purpose and effect is being poisoned at the root.

CNN anchor Christopher Cuomo’s recent overt attack against the Declaration of Independence is a bolder manifestation of this campaign than I have seen before. The elitist faction’s strategy against the Declaration has heretofore aimed to inflict death by a thousand cuts, inflicted indirectly. The moral principles set forth in the Declaration have an indispensable role in the conception and perpetuation of our democratic-republican form of government. So why are Americans willing to suffer pundits like Christopher Cuomo to dismiss out of hand the Declaration’s premise of God’s transcendent authority, which justifies constitutional government, of, by and for the people?

Some are no doubt shortsighted enough to believe that the political exile of God enlarges their “freedom.” They at least tacitly applaud the understanding that freedom is the license to do as we please and prevent others from interfering with, or even disapproving, our actions. But even as individuals most of us outgrow the conviction that such freedom is really consistent with our happiness. We should be even more inclined to do so when dealing with its grave implications for society as a whole. What is the price of such licentious freedom? And, the more important question for our political liberty, when the internal force of moral constraint is banished, will it be possible to impose any effective limit upon the activities of those who can afford to pay that price?

It is a mistake to read the first question as if it were the basis for some kind of social science research project. It is meant literally. The rich and powerful often say, as if from their own experience, that everyone has a price, a form of remuneration in exchange for which they will do whatever some purchaser demands. The fact that prostitution is as old as the cavernous hills (and not just in the sexual sense) leads common sense to nod reflexively in agreement. But it should also warn us of the degradation of the human person the maxim implies. Once it is simply allowed to be true, those who have sufficient wealth and power are free to procure marionettes to service all their whims and passions, however criminal and unjust, with no a priori limit except the extent of their resourceful power and will.

That’s because, for what they regard as sufficient remuneration, too many people will gratefully sell themselves or others into slavery, even unto death. It is a fact that has proven true so often, (for example, in the event of conquest) that it has falsely been regarded as a source of right. If you think this through it soon becomes evident that the rule of “consensus and compromise” Chris Cuomo cites as the only source of law in America, actually masks the domination of those who have the wealth to buy consensus and/or the power to impose submission by force and intimidation, and then claim that it’s a compromise.

Discard the God-acknowledging principles of the Declaration and this is what America will be left with – which is exactly why powerful forces are at work in politics, the courts and the media to produce that result. This is a far cry from what America’s founders had in mind. They sought to harness the distinctively human forces of natural right endowed by God – such as conscience, faith and a sense of decency – to keep the force of raw power within bounds, thereby giving the exercise of right a chance to flourish. [In the whole of this essay, which I am making available in a series on my blog, I examine the role of the natural family as the sustaining paradigm for society and government based on the exercise of God-endowed unalienable right. In the elitist faction campaign to overthrow America's constitutional self-government, it is under strenuous attack, precisely because of that role.]

Receive Alan Keyes' commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Alan Keyes' alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

Name*

FirstLast

Email*

Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code*

A valid zip code or postal code is required

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/chris-cuomos-stance-against-god-endowed-rights/feed/0The Constitution supports Chief Justice Roy Moorehttp://www.wnd.com/2015/02/the-constitution-supports-chief-justice-roy-moore/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/the-constitution-supports-chief-justice-roy-moore/#commentsFri, 13 Feb 2015 01:20:32 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1693305In the aftermath of the 2012 election’s gloomy choice, I wrote a blog post in which I noted Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore’s promising call to His supporters: “Go home with the knowledge that we are going to stand for the acknowledgment of God.”

As I hoped and expected when I wrote the article, Chief Justice Moore is now proving true to his word. Under his leadership, the Alabama judiciary is refusing to surrender the power of his state and its people over matters the Constitution’s 10th Amendment clearly reserves “to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Since the U.S. was founded, the Congress and the federal courts respected the constitutionally reserved power of the people, in their respective states, conscientiously to establish and maintain civil respect for the exercise of individual right that, by reproducing and preserving human offspring, directly serves the common good of their society, and indeed of humanity itself. The people exercise their power in this regard, in and through private and voluntary associations (such as, for example, their organized religious institutions), or by force of laws enacted by their duly elected representatives in state government.

Thanks, however, to a slew of perverse fiat judgments by some elements of the federal judiciary, a crisis is developing that has the potential to destroy both our Constitution and our civil peace. Those decisions fabricate and seek to impose a “right to marry” on behalf of a form of human sexual activity hitherto pretty universally regarded as beyond the pale of right, or the possibility of marriage in any rightful sense of the term. These fiat judgments overturn the concept of unalienable right, rooted in the authority of the Creator, on which the independence of the United States was founded. In its place the fiat judgments seek to impose a licentious concept of right, indistinguishable from arbitrary freedom and therefore limited and constrained by nothing, more or less, than the will and convenience of those who happen to be society’s dominant powers.

Though they hide the truth behind the fig leaf doctrine of a “living constitution,” they can achieve their purpose only by pretending that provisions of the Constitution inconsistent with their whims are to be treated as dead letters. For a long time, this was the fate of the 10th Amendment. It continues to be the fate of the Ninth Amendment. Both are, however, the subject of new interest from Americans determined to preserve the sovereign self-government of the American people against the ongoing elitist faction campaign to overthrow it.

So it may yet prove to be the case that the Constitution’s Ninth and 10th Amendments, like the daughter of the synagogue ruler in the Bible (Mark 5:39), are not dead. It seems so only because American patriots are sleeping. The stand being taken by Chief Justice Moore and the people of Alabama may yet rouse them to take action. But if so, in order to be effective they will have to think through and prepare for the difficulties involved in any revival of authentic constitutional government.

In this regard they need to realize that, contrary to the careless language routinely employed even by its ardent advocates, the 10th Amendment does not speak of states’ rights, it speaks of the powers reserved to the States or the people. The current judicial assault against those powers is being conducted in the name of rights. As I have argued elsewhere, the fundamental principles and premises of American liberty have, from its first beginnings, required Americans to acknowledge that a valid claim of unalienable right limits and constrains the power of government, for they fall along the line that distinguishes a just exercise of power from its intolerable abuse.

In the context of America’s understanding of justice, a constitutional argument that evokes a speciously fabricated right (such as the specious “right” of homosexuals to marry) must be met by an argument that evokes fundamental and unalienable right. Because the latter is rooted in the will and power of the Creator (the ultimate authority from which the people’s authority to govern themselves is derived), it trumps any right fabricated by human will and power.

As I have elsewhere shown, the logic of American constitutional liberty in this regard is nearly self-evident. The U.S. Constitution’s Ninth Amendment applies that logic when it plainly states that “the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Unalienable rights, as endowed by the Creator, including the exercise of right from which the natural family arises, are antecedent to all human law and government whatsoever. They are, therefore, undeniably among the rights the people retain. Obviously, no right fabricated by judicial fiat on the basis of the constitutionally enumerated rights can be construed to disparage the rights of the natural family, or interfere with the reserved power of the people to preserve and respect them, privately and/or by laws duly enacted by their state governments.

I hope and expect that people now standing in defense of that liberty will ponder the Ninth Amendment’s significance. It may or may not have some effect on judges and justices determined to discard constitutional provisions that limit the dictatorial power of the elitist clique they now loyally serve. Be that as it may, however, on the basis of its logic we can rediscover the solid ground of reason and faith that inspired America’s founding generation to stand, against all odds, in resistance to tyranny. We can rekindle the courage that will allow us to endure even the prospect and rigors of war, if it comes to that, in order to secure the unalienable right of liberty by which we have been blessed, and which it is our duty to pass on to our posterity.

Receive Alan Keyes' commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Alan Keyes' alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

Name*

FirstLast

Email*

Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code*

A valid zip code or postal code is required

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/the-constitution-supports-chief-justice-roy-moore/feed/0'Gay marriage' – is the law what the judge says it is?http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/gay-marriage-is-the-law-what-the-judge-says-it-is/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/gay-marriage-is-the-law-what-the-judge-says-it-is/#commentsFri, 06 Feb 2015 00:49:38 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1669205It looks as if the U.S. Supreme Court means to tackle the “gay marriage” issue this term. As their sworn oath requires it, they will presumably do so in terms of the Constitution of the United States. Sadly, the opinions thus far delivered by the lower federal courts hardly justify this assumption. After years of acting in light of the self-evident lie that “The law is what the judge says it is,” many federal judges appear to have reached the dangerous conclusion that their high office exists to enforce their personal views, which, once handed down, must be credited with the force of law. Their written opinions therefore consist in a string of declarations, occasionally lucid, but for the most part devoid of logical reasoning.

This way of proceeding not only departs from the discipline of reason. It entirely contradicts the logic of constitutional government. In order to be reasonable, our thinking must respect the provisions by which reason operates. They are the logic that is, as it were, the constitution of reason. In like manner, in order to be constitutional, the actions of the U.S. government must respect the logic by which it is supposed to operate in accordance with the provision of the U.S. Constitution. It follows that any judgment about the constitutionality of a given policy, action or activity of government must be articulated in terms that logically substantiate the conclusion that the said policy, action or activity does or does not satisfy this requirement.

This cannot be done without articulating a train of thought that traces the evidently logical steps by which the judgment is justified in terms of the language and premises of relevant constitutional provisions. In this respect, constitutional law is not what the judge says it is. It is what judges and justices can, by logical reasoning, demonstrate it to be. This demonstration is required because the competent sovereign will that makes their opinion lawful is not their own, but that of the people as expressed in the Constitution ordained and established by them.

Over the past several years, I’ve written quite a few articles on the subject of the so-called “right” asserted in respect of “gay marriage. So it is only after much thought that I venture to say that the Supreme Court’s decisions could very well be as momentous as the Dred Scott decision in the 19th century, and just as fraught with potentially fatal implications for the future Liberty and Union of the people of the United States. Many Americans feel that this is so. But when it comes to constitutional law, our feelings cannot be the crux of the matter. Rather we must rely, as the young Abraham Lincoln once said, on “Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason.”

Because we live in an age mesmerized by the exaggerated authority of empirical science, we are prone to forget that reason never operates in a vacuum. Something, indeed a number of things must be taken for granted. These supply the starting point for thought, as well as the rules and procedures that allow the mind to recognize the point at which a valid conclusion is reached. Because they are taken for granted, the most basic premises of reason are usually not explicitly articulated in our thinking, but by nature and education they make themselves known when they are violated.

As we should expect, constitutional reasoning requires assumptions, rules and procedures analogous to those of reason itself. They have to do with the source and nature of right, and the rules and procedures that allow us to distinguish right from wrong, justice from injustice. In the normal course of things, they are not explicitly articulated in the thinking that informs our actions. But by nature and education we come to know when they are being violated.

The Constitution of the United States is a general rule for government in written form, produced by deliberate thought and approved by consultation with the will of the people as a whole, expressed through their deliberately selected representatives. The premises and principles of justice these characteristics themselves exemplify are nowhere stated in the Constitution itself. Yet neither the form of government it establishes, nor the language it employs in doing so, can be understood without taking account of them.

The people of the United States are blessed to have an explicit statement of those principles, produced in circumstances that prove beyond doubt (by the test of arduous, deliberately chosen warfare) that they informed the thinking and moved the will of the generation that produced the Constitution. I mean, of course, the Declaration of Independence, and the historical circumstances that preceded and flowed from it.

In any course of reasoning, logical conclusions about its validity cannot be substantiated without regard for the unstated premises of reason itself. Similarly, in any course of reasoning about the U.S. Constitution, logical conclusions about how it applies cannot be substantiated without regard for the premises of the Constitutional itself. Constructing a constitutional argument without reference to those premises is like constructing a house without reference to the foundations laid down for it. The parts not built upon that foundation will not stand. If they include what were supposed to be the main load-bearing walls of the house, as they collapse they will very likely bring the rest of the structure down along with them. (This train of thought arrives at its destination in Part II: “Gay marriage – what is the issue of right?” Just a click away.)

Receive Alan Keyes' commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Alan Keyes' alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

Name*

FirstLast

Email*

Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code*

A valid zip code or postal code is required

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/gay-marriage-is-the-law-what-the-judge-says-it-is/feed/0Pragmatism and the demise of statesmanshiphttp://www.wnd.com/2015/01/pragmatism-and-the-demise-of-statesmanship/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/pragmatism-and-the-demise-of-statesmanship/#commentsFri, 30 Jan 2015 00:45:47 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1646155In a recently published article, I allude to the critical role of American statesmanship in crafting the “confederal international system established … after WWII.” I observe that it is statesmanship the political class spawned by America’s present corrupt political process no longer seems willing or able to provide. Readers would be mistaken to think that the phrase “willing or able” is simply a rhetorical trope. It alludes to a profound consequence of the elitist faction’s corruption of America’s political process. The elitists have abandoned the uniquely thoughtful understanding of politics that characterized America’s prevalent founders. The founders focused on the responsibilities of decent citizens. The elitists instead promote an ideology that focuses on the power of government.

This shift from “understanding” to “ideology,” and from citizens’ affairs to government affairs, corresponds to the elitist faction’s goal of transforming the character of the American people in order to establish tyranny over them. From a nation of responsible individuals who establish government to preserve and perpetuate their common life (res publica), Americans are being morphed into pliable masses. As such, they will be more easily subjected to manipulation and exploitation by those who secretly believe no one is responsible for anything but achieving and maintaining superior power.

The shallow, tendentious philosophizing of Marx and other by-blows of Hegel’s deformed Kantianism, clothes this power-mad “pragmatism” in ideological fancy dress. Yet it simply reiterates the age-old opinion Plato alludes to in “The Republic,” which holds that right is whatever those who prove superior in power declare it to be.

Though derived from thinking that strives to impose the dialectical paradigm on all existing things, the ideology in question drives truly dialectical discourse from every stage of human conversation, including the one that directly perpetuates humanity. As professor Louis Beres observed recently, “From Plato’s time onward, dialectical thinking has required the disciplined asking and answering of certain questions.” But what does that discipline require? Among other things, taking care to make sure that we “know what we do not know,” so we put the right question to a person whose answer will help us to remedy the deficiency.

This is not the least important illustration of Christ’s famous conclusion: “For he that hath, to him shall be given” (Matthew 4:25) . But the “pragmatic” elitist faction ideology mimics empirical science in taking a view of human affairs that forces truth to wait upon results. It must say, like Macbeth in the play (Act 3, Scene 4), “Strange things I have in head that will to hand, which must be acted ere they may be scanned.” But when it comes to human actions, “there’s the rub.” If Nazi Germany had ended up in America’s position after World War II, and Hitler had dictated the peace, would that have made the extermination of so-called “inferior” races, which would very likely have ensued, right and just? God forbid!

In human affairs moral atrocity cannot be endured on the excuse that we cannot know right from wrong until we see who proves to be victorious. The experiment that cleanses the world of those whom some regard as noxious vermin in human form ought simply to be forbidden. But by what empirical data can this conclusion be verified unless and until the experiment is carried out? Moral judgment thus literally requires that we know what we do not know; that we have some way of testing the true nature of the actions we “will to hand” before we carry that will into action.

By whatever name it is said to be justified (historicism, scientific materialism, progressivism, evolutionary growth, etc.) the elitist faction’s “pragmatic” ideology for government involves pretending that human beings are best governed by those who “get things done,” even though that pretense discards the moral premises for thinking about whether such things are rightly done. Absent these moral premises, it’s easy to maintain that people must “wait and see” before making any judgment. Thus advances the illogic of totalitarian control over thought and behavior. Thus pragmatism prepares for the assertion that those who criticize, resist, or interfere with what is to be done are to blame for the evils entailed by the execution of policy, or its bad results.

I am at a loss to understand why any Americans not yet bought and sold by the elitist faction’s powers that be are taken in by the thoughtless disregard for moral reason involved in the new regime the elitists seek to impose. Such Americans simply have no excuse for supporting politicians who champion the perversions of libertarianism and/or social conscience now being held up as façades to mask the destruction of liberty and prepare for wholesale moral and material atrocity, including the persecution of good conscience in heart and thought, in fact and action.

People inclined to understand and agree with the thoughts here expressed need seriously to consider their implication for our agenda as citizens. Many of you still believe in the logic of our nation’s founders. They had the wisdom and decency to acknowledge what they do not know and look to their Creator God for guidance in the search for it. They rejected the false notion that experiment can replace experience as the discipline for judgment about human affairs. And they rejected the notion that experience could be judge by facts alone, with no regard for God’s provisions.

Looking back upon the experience of the United States in the world, and the world’s experience of the United States, what fair minded-person willing to imitate the decency and wisdom of the founding would willingly discard the premises of God-endowed right, and of liberty defined in light of it, that guided, constrained and matured this nation’s development? Those premises brought us to a pinnacle of success that greatly benefited the world, before the ripe machinations of elitist ambition set us on the road to ruin. If we mean to live on the premises of our founding, one conclusion is inevitable: We must discard the corrupt, elitist party sham that presently seeks to overthrow them.

Receive Alan Keyes' commentaries in your email

BONUS: By signing up for Alan Keyes' alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email.

Name*

FirstLast

Email*

Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code*

A valid zip code or postal code is required

]]>http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/pragmatism-and-the-demise-of-statesmanship/feed/0Obama and GOP's treacherous 'common ground'http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/obama-and-gops-treacherous-common-ground/
http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/obama-and-gops-treacherous-common-ground/#commentsFri, 23 Jan 2015 00:58:20 +0000http://wp.wnd.com/?p=1621715Obama’s recent State of the Union speech to Congress, and the GOP responses to it, put me in mind of the famous observation, sometimes attributed to Benjamin Franklin: Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. But in our day, the wolves have increased in cunning and declined in forbearance. To describe contemporary politics, the saying would have to be revised. Our politics is like two wolves in sheepdog’s clothing. To secure their food supply, they convince a great flock of sheep that the tasty stew they eat instead of grass is made from soybeans and lentils. Socialism is the serving dish in which their stewed lamb comes to table.

Both Barack Obama’s speech and the GOP’s response to it ought to awaken conservatives to the fact that the socialist disease that presently affects the body politic is far advanced. Obama spoke as if the 2014 election never happened. He took it for granted that the anti-American, anti-constitutional, socialist agenda Americans soundly rejected at the polls will stand, no matter what the voters think of it.

Inflated with this arrogant presumption, he confidently scoffed at the prospect that Congress might act to halt his dictatorial career. Like Zeus brandishing his thunderbolts, Obama hurled the threat of presidential vetoes, sure that the prospect will cause all the lesser gods to grovel. But haven’t Americans faced down would-be tyrants before? Obama’s presumption should be a serious miscalculation.

However, the preponderance of available evidence suggests otherwise. Consider for example John Boehner’s comment on Obama’s speech (as reported by AP):

Finding common ground is what the American people sent us here to do, but you would know it from the president’s speech tonight. While veto threats and unserious proposals may make for good political theater, they will not distract this new American Congress from our focus on the people’s priorities.

This was a decidedly limp-wristed response to the brazen defiance with which Obama warned against legislative action to oppose his tyranny, on the very issues that most deeply riled voters in the last election (Obamacare, the Obama-sponsored invasion of the U.S. by illegal immigrants, the betrayal of America’s security, the barrage of dictatorial attacks against the authority of the U.S. Constitution). Yet Boehner’s plaintive Rodney King imitation is exactly what we have come to expect from the GOP’s quisling leadership. After all, their past and present actions suggest that Obama’s defiant contempt for the decent will of the voters is one portion of the ground Obama and the quisling leaders have in common.

Boehner’s comment begins with a palpable lie that illustrates this fact. The GOP won majorities in both Houses of Congress on the strength of voters adamantly opposed to Obama’s bid to transform America into a dictatorial socialist state. Getting along with his criminal assault on the U.S. Constitution had nothing to do with it. Boehner’s deceitful characterization of the election’s mandate walks a line that parallels Obama faction propaganda, according to which the recent election was a bigoted aberration that mustn’t be allowed to matter. The elitist faction directive is: Continue to frog-march America into the socialist abyss.

Boehner deceitfully ignores his obligation to respect the real priorities of the voters responsible for his party’s victory. He clumsily diverts attention from this dereliction with the truly false assurance that he and his quisling colleagues won’t be distracted from those priorities. (No need to be distracted from something you’re determined to ignore.) Such GOP deceitfulness is precisely what gives Obama license to fill the air with lies of his own, including a straight-faced reference in his speech to reducing the number of abortions, just as if he is not the high priest of the abortion cult.

With this reference, Obama illustrates the treacherous pitfall of the “common ground” Boehner refers to. “To reduce the number of abortions” is the mantra of those pro-lifers who (inadvertently?) end up securing state laws that legitimize abortion on the excuse of regulating it. As a result of their successes, even if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned tomorrow, the regime of abortion law imposed by court fiat (which is not law at all) would give way to a regime of laws in more than half the states that regulate the right to do what is against all right, thus subverting the acknowledgement of God-endowed justice from which the American people derive their right of self-government.

And what of the GOP’s response to Obama’s promise to rescue America’s mangled middle class? In the days when a true understanding of America’s success guided their rhetoric, conservative politicians answered lying leftist promises about government policies that “create” jobs by emphasizing that the true engine of job creation is entrepreneurship. They understood that it is especially new businesses that produce new jobs. This understanding went hand-in-hand with an authentic commitment to respectfully immunizing the material strength of the American middle class, of which entrepreneurship is the beating heart.

Thanks to the elitist faction assault on our middle class, America is no longer the No. 1 economy in the world. Moreover, as David Limbaugh recently noted, “for the first time in 35 years, the United States is no longer first but 12th among developed nations in business startup activity.” Meanwhile, behind a screen of deceitfully manipulated government statistics, the ranks of the hopelessly unemployed (people who have given up looking for a job in the regular economy) continue to swell.

The apostles of government job-creationism (including now many GOP leaders who have adopted their rhetoric) don’t aim to create jobs. They aim to induce dependency. They aim to transform free citizens, working for themselves in voluntary association, into dependent subjects, working to build new fiefdoms of despotic power for elitist faction governmental and corporate dynasties. The faction’s henchmen are gutting the substance of middle-class economic life (initiative, imagination and hard work). They mean to replace it with a framework of government distributed favors, given in exchange for loyalty without conscience and obedience without question. The only right goal for legislation in this respect is to stop them cold.